Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Zionist Hollywood Discriminates Against Palestinian Director
It is now tiresomely clear how Zionist Jews dominate all media, from Hollywood to New York, as I picked up my new issue of Vanity Fair to read, which features Jewish actors, writers, and state-sponsored terrorists in its prominent stories, all written by Jews as well. Everything is told from the Zionist Jews' point of view. Even the libertine writer Levy, a bleeding heart for the Bosnians, ignores the Palestinians completely. What is wrong with this picture?
Oscar Doesn\'t Like Palestinians
By Tariq Shadid
Monday, December 09 2002 @ 08:01 PM GMT
PalestineChronicle.com
The Academy Foundation of Motion Picture, Arts and Sciences represents, to many people, an important symbol of one of their most valued forms of entertainment,
namely the film industry. Not only in America, but on a world-wide level, do the heroes of Hollywood’s white screen reach international celebrity status, revered by
many, and looked upon as examples of achievement.
For this reason, the Academy’s world-famous award, the Oscar, is generally considered to be one of the highest decorations in the world of arts, and its glamorous
award ceremony is followed by many, and the decisions of its jury anxiously awaited.
It appears, however, that the Academy has decided to exclude some of its admirers from the possibility of having one of their own artists contending for this prize, for
the mere reason that it does not recognize their national identity, namely the Palestinians.
Recently, Palestinian filmmaker and actor Elia Suleiman’s film ‘Divine Intervention’ was denied entry in the race for Oscar nominations in the category of “Best Foreign
Film”, on the grounds that “Palestine is not a nation”. In sharp contrast, the same movie won the Jury Award at the famous film festival of Cannes, in France, only weeks
ago.
If Elia Suleiman wanted to enter his movie, what should he call himself, if not a Palestinian?
With the exception of a handful of states, the whole world recognizes Palestine as a nation, as is exemplified by the overwhelming vote in the UN General Assembly of
July 7, 1998, when Palestine’s status in the UN was elevated to that of non-voting member, with a majority of 124-4. Therefore, even if official statehood has not yet
been achieved, the world community has clearly voiced its recognition of the fact that Palestine is at the least a nation, if not yet a state, due to the complications
caused by the continuing occupation of the Palestinian homeland.
Therefore, to exclude Elia Suleiman’s movie on the grounds that Palestine is not a nation, is a clear political statement, which serves to illustrate the Academy’s rigid
anti-Palestinian position. It is impossible for the Academy to hide behind the “technical” excuse of saying that only official states are allowed entry for nomination,
especially in times when the whole world has been waiting for the implementation of a vast number of UN resolutions, treaties and accords all pointing in the direction
of the establishment of a Palestinian state.
By denying the existence of Palestine as a nation, the Academy implicitly states that there is no reason to ever establish this Palestinian state, which, in the spectrum of
existing opinions concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is a stance that is otherwise adopted only by Zionist right-wing extremists. Even the current Bush
administration has clearly stated that it envisages a Palestinian state as an end goal in the resolution of the conflict.
The Academy is clearly underestimating the extent to which such discriminatory action damages its image on a global level. In sharp contrast, the organizers of the
Cannes film festival will have gained credit among a significant part of the world population, even enhanced by the Academy’s provocative move of excluding a
winning film from nomination.
Has the Academy ever before made such a clear and blunt political statement, abusing the responsibility it bears towards the world community, which is connected to
the unique position it occupies in the film industry on an international level?
Even if this tragic display of primitive tribalism should turn out to be their only error of judgment, one thing becomes as clear as glass: the Academy Foundation is
incapable of upholding the internationally accepted standards of decency and justice, and does not deserve to be revered. In fact, an artist being awarded an Oscar
may have to wonder, what the real value of this decoration is. After all, the Academy may be applying the same level of wisdom in its distinctions between art and
kitsch, as it applies to distinguishing right from wrong.
It obviously appears, that Oscar, our dear and beloved friend, just doesn’t like Palestinians.
-The author is a Palestinian-Dutch surgeon. He is also a regular columnist and an editor for the PalestineChronicle.com
-Palestine Chronicle (palestinechronicle.com). Redistributed via Press International News Agency (PINA).
By Tariq Shadid
Monday, December 09 2002 @ 08:01 PM GMT
PalestineChronicle.com
The Academy Foundation of Motion Picture, Arts and Sciences represents, to many people, an important symbol of one of their most valued forms of entertainment,
namely the film industry. Not only in America, but on a world-wide level, do the heroes of Hollywood’s white screen reach international celebrity status, revered by
many, and looked upon as examples of achievement.
For this reason, the Academy’s world-famous award, the Oscar, is generally considered to be one of the highest decorations in the world of arts, and its glamorous
award ceremony is followed by many, and the decisions of its jury anxiously awaited.
It appears, however, that the Academy has decided to exclude some of its admirers from the possibility of having one of their own artists contending for this prize, for
the mere reason that it does not recognize their national identity, namely the Palestinians.
Recently, Palestinian filmmaker and actor Elia Suleiman’s film ‘Divine Intervention’ was denied entry in the race for Oscar nominations in the category of “Best Foreign
Film”, on the grounds that “Palestine is not a nation”. In sharp contrast, the same movie won the Jury Award at the famous film festival of Cannes, in France, only weeks
ago.
If Elia Suleiman wanted to enter his movie, what should he call himself, if not a Palestinian?
With the exception of a handful of states, the whole world recognizes Palestine as a nation, as is exemplified by the overwhelming vote in the UN General Assembly of
July 7, 1998, when Palestine’s status in the UN was elevated to that of non-voting member, with a majority of 124-4. Therefore, even if official statehood has not yet
been achieved, the world community has clearly voiced its recognition of the fact that Palestine is at the least a nation, if not yet a state, due to the complications
caused by the continuing occupation of the Palestinian homeland.
Therefore, to exclude Elia Suleiman’s movie on the grounds that Palestine is not a nation, is a clear political statement, which serves to illustrate the Academy’s rigid
anti-Palestinian position. It is impossible for the Academy to hide behind the “technical” excuse of saying that only official states are allowed entry for nomination,
especially in times when the whole world has been waiting for the implementation of a vast number of UN resolutions, treaties and accords all pointing in the direction
of the establishment of a Palestinian state.
By denying the existence of Palestine as a nation, the Academy implicitly states that there is no reason to ever establish this Palestinian state, which, in the spectrum of
existing opinions concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is a stance that is otherwise adopted only by Zionist right-wing extremists. Even the current Bush
administration has clearly stated that it envisages a Palestinian state as an end goal in the resolution of the conflict.
The Academy is clearly underestimating the extent to which such discriminatory action damages its image on a global level. In sharp contrast, the organizers of the
Cannes film festival will have gained credit among a significant part of the world population, even enhanced by the Academy’s provocative move of excluding a
winning film from nomination.
Has the Academy ever before made such a clear and blunt political statement, abusing the responsibility it bears towards the world community, which is connected to
the unique position it occupies in the film industry on an international level?
Even if this tragic display of primitive tribalism should turn out to be their only error of judgment, one thing becomes as clear as glass: the Academy Foundation is
incapable of upholding the internationally accepted standards of decency and justice, and does not deserve to be revered. In fact, an artist being awarded an Oscar
may have to wonder, what the real value of this decoration is. After all, the Academy may be applying the same level of wisdom in its distinctions between art and
kitsch, as it applies to distinguishing right from wrong.
It obviously appears, that Oscar, our dear and beloved friend, just doesn’t like Palestinians.
-The author is a Palestinian-Dutch surgeon. He is also a regular columnist and an editor for the PalestineChronicle.com
-Palestine Chronicle (palestinechronicle.com). Redistributed via Press International News Agency (PINA).
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$140.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
Hollywood is one of the main culprits in the anti-Arab hatred so prevalent in this country. It has purposefully and systematically defamed all Arabs for political reasons having to do with making Israel look good.
Below, Professor Jack Shaheen discusses this phenomena of Hollywood:
http://realserver.bu.edu:8080/ramgen/w/b/wbur/oneunionstation/2001/11/spc_1127b.rm
Her career in Hollywood was wrecked as a result of that.
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0395/9503047.htm
Here is an excerpt:
"In April 1982 the Boston Symphony Orchestra cancelled a sold-out performance of Stravinsky's 'Oedipus Rex,' with narration by Vanessa Redgrave, because some financial supporters of the orchestra claimed her appearance would offend the Jewish community. On at least two other occasions since then, American productions have been cancelled because objections were raised to Redgrave's appearance."
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0395/9503047.htm
Neither did Ireland until its independance in the 20s. Before that it had either been occupied or divided into small kingdoms.
By the way, what's your point? Palestinians have never had a government of their own so it is ok to make their homes into graves with bulldozers and build on top of them?
But this seems to be a time when petty minded bullys are in power everywhere. Being tolerant and open-minded are out of fashion in high places.
Ná glac duine choíche ar a thuaraisc fhéin.
(Irish Proverb - Never accept anyone's own opinion of themselves.)
To pro-Israelis the dismantling of the exclusionary nature of Israel in favor of equality for all its inhabitants is the "destruction of Israel."
On the other hand, they don't mind that Palestine has been destroyed (literally, with its inhabitants kicked out and many killed) and never allowed to *exist*.
Can you say hypocrisy?
We have grown so accustomed to this that we have pretty much come to accept it.
Hopefully some decent alternative movie outlets will offer this film. Although I'm sure even many of these places will censor it.
For concrete evidence about how Hollywood dehumanizes Arabs, see Jack Shaheen's audio talk up above. For example, he notes that Arab actors are never allowed to have roles in Hollywood other than that of terrorist or some sort of other nasty stereotype.
From The Washingtion Report on Middle East Affairs:
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0395/9503047.htm
"The Palestinian" premiered in November 1977 at the London Film Festival, but in the U.S. neither the Public Broadcasting Service nor any other network would show it. Nevertheless, an actor who had seen a private screening of the film gave a distorted account to a gossip columnist and the news of Redgrave's support for the PLO spread rapidly. Because of her sympathy for the Palestinians, she was accused of being a terrorist. At a meeting in Los Angeles one speaker waved a fistful of dollars and shouted, "Who is willing to rid the world of a Jew-baiter?"
In March 1978 Israel launched one of its periodic invasions of Lebanon, and less than a month later Redgrave again flew to Beirut and drove south. In her book she describes the ruins of Sidon and Tyre, where Israeli bombs had reduced entire apartment blocks to rubble. Rescuers were still pulling bodies from the wreckage and the pools of water from shattered water mains were red with blood in this preview of Israel's even bloodier 1982 invasion. Redgrave noted that although more than 100,000 Lebanese people were injured or made homeless, and their farms and workplaces destroyed, no medicine or other aid was sent from the U.S. or Europe. At the U.N., the U.S. and Britain vetoed resolutions condemning the invasion.
And obviously, you haven't done much research about the history of Zionism, because if you did, you would know that the founders of Zionism also considered such far-flung places are Argentina, Costa Rica and Uganda as possible places for a Jewish homeland. It just so happened that Palestine was convenient because of the Brits, and then it was ever so convenient to tie in the history of the place to the Jewish past presence, even though it was 2000 years ago! Excuse me, I think the expiration date passed! There can be no justification for dispossessing the indigenous people for a Jewish supremacist state! But that is what Zionism is all about! NO ONE would want their land taken from them. They would be willing to share it with them practicing the golden rule, but that was NEVER the plan of the racist Zionists.
Israel was more of a tribe of Jews than a state. Besides, in MY Bible, all I see is PALESTINE. I guess you must have a different Bible I'm sure. NO MATTER. Ethnic cleansing is NEVER OK, whether it's the Jews who are being ethnically cleansed OR the Palestinians. That is why the secular, completely democratic one-state solution with equal rights for all regardless of religion,race or sex, including for all 5.5 million Palestinian refugees, is the best, most humane solution.
For Jews who don't like it, they can always live in America. It's better here anyway!
And Fresca, YOU are the one who should do YOUR homework before you keep on spouting off all that stuff they teach you in the synagogue or at home.... check this out "Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict" written by the Jews for Justice in the Middle East at http://www.cactus48.com You will learn something, I'm sure, if you bother to check it out. But you probably want to keep clinging to your pathetic self-serving beliefs.
You, Fresca, are an arrogant, delusional, selfish racist! Maybe someday you will see the light! Soon I hope.
You might find http://www.netureikarta.org very interesting as well, which is a website by Ultra Orthodox Jews who have always been against Zionism even before there was an Israel created in 1948.
The main point to remember is that in the Palestine-Israel conflict, the Zionists with the help of colonialist, imperialist European countries, took land away from the Palestinians to make a Jewish supremacist country. NO ONE ON EARTH WOULD WANT TO GIVE UP THEIR ANCESTRAL HOME FOR SOMEONE ELSE? Why should the Palestinians be expected to do so? The Zionists NEVER intended to SHARE the land as equals. THUS, the Zionist state of Israel is the offending party. It is time for the UN to undue it's initial error and TRANSFORM Israel into the secular, democratic country for ALL the people of the land, regardless of religion, race or sex, which is the only truly humane, progressive solution! When apartheid ended in South Africa, it remained one country! NOT one country for whites and one country for blacks! That is apartheid and segretion and involves ethnic cleansing!
Most Israelis like to think Israel is somewhat secular alrady and there are even nonJewish Arab members of the Knesset. Within 30-40 years if demographic trends stay the same Israel proper (no including the West Bank and Gaza) will be a majority nonJewish. So never seems like a strong word...
And there's NO justification for a Jewish supremacist state in Palestine-Israel, which necessitates ethnic cleansing and discriminatatory practices based on religion/ race/ethnicity. Apartheid is WRONG in Israel as it was WRONG in South Africa!
That's the propaganda the media has allowed to persist to protect Zionism from criticism. The truth is that Zionists are to blame for the entire conflict, but fantasies like the quote above are invented for the American public's consumption so that they don't question aid to the very country that has been responsible for all the wars there.
European settlers only started going to Palestine during the 20th century and the state of Israel was created by people who were not born in that land but came from Europe in 1948.
Very few of these conflicts involved any of the groups (Jews, Druze, Palestinians, Christians etc etc etc) native to the area, but rather, almost all the conflicts in the region came from external forces - Mongols, Christians, Ottomans, etc.
Generally speaking, the actual inhabitants were fairly peaceable to one another, up until the 20th century.
BTW, as far as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is concerned, Israel started all the wars there with the exception of the 1973 war in which Egypt, Syria and Jordan attacked Israeli positions on lands that had been occupied six years earlier.
In 1948, Arab forces came in to protect Palestinian villagers from being massacred. They entered the conflict around the middle of May when Palestinians started to get massacred a month before in April (of which Deir Yassin is an example).
In 1956, Israel (along with the empires of old -- France and Britain) invaded Egypt to take control of the Suez Canal which Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser had nationalized. They were all forced out by US President Dwight D. Eisenhower. After that, Israel's supporters in the US decided to start supporting Israel here so that the next time Israel captured more territory they would not be forced to give it back.
Such a time came again in 1967 when Israel invaded Egypt, Jordan and Syria and captured today's Occupied Territories along with the Sinai. This was a direct attack by Israel even though Israel's supporters claim up and down that Israel was attacked.
After rebuffing several offers of peace by Egypt, Israel was attacked in 1973 by Egypt, Jordan and Syria but only on lands occupied six years earlier in 1967. They never stepped one foot into Israeli territory (unless you consider the territories Israel occupied as part of Israel). This shook Israel up pretty badly.
After this, Israel was willing to make peace with Egypt and gave back the Sinai. This removed Egypt as a deterrent on Israel's southern border.
In 1978, Israel attacked Lebanon killing 2000 people. This was a direct attack.
In 1982, Israel again attacked Lebanon killing 20,000 people almost all civilian. Despite propaganda to the contrary, there were no provocations to justify this attack. Israel had been bombing Lebanon's southern border for months in order to elicit some sort of response which they could then use to justify their planned invasion.
Israel remained in Southern Lebanon in what was known as their Security Zone (a twenty mile stretch into Lebanon) until 2000. They were kicked out by the Lebanese resistance. Even though the Lebanese were fighting on their own land against an invading/occupying foreign army, they were considered the terrorists (not the Israelis) by the US media.
All this time Israel had been attacking its neighbors but all you hear incessantly in the US media is that Israel was attacked five or six times by the Arabs.
And don't take my word for any of this.
This is very well documented in Noam Chomsky's "The Fateful Triangle" (in the Historical Background chapter) and "Pirates and Emperors." Chomsky is an impartial and objective source.
--------, *******, >>>>>> etc are all available.
I suppose imitation IS a form of flattery though.